Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The Cost of Fear

In The Times today, Jeff Bailey writes on the surge in lost luggage, a predictable result of the government’s hasty decision to ban liquids from carry-on bags.

This came from arrests of people who were accused of thinking of using liquids to blow up a plane, not from anyone actually trying it. Did it deter any terrorists? That is unknowable. But it is doubtful.

Now the rulewriters are at work to try to limit the damage from their own ill-conceived rule. We are told we can carry on liquids, but with arbitrary restrictions. They must fit into clear zip-top bags, no larger than 8 by 8 inches. And they must be in very small bottles. (That will be a boon to drug stores that sell so-called travel-size bottles, which sometimes cost more than larger bottles of the same product.)

Opposing any of this could make a politician seem as if he or she is soft on terrorism, while creating more rules provides the appearance of action against terrorism. So we will likely go on bearing the costs of fear.

No set of security procedures will stop well trained, disciplined Islamic fanatics once its leadership decides to attack. Like during the Cold War, the West has been likely throughly infiltrated with sleeper cells awaiting orders.

Soviet sleeper cells slept all the way through the Cold War because we were politically smart enough to realize containment accompanied by military restraint, and relentless diplomatic engagement would buy enough time for Russian communism to collapse internally from its inherent antagonism to human nature.

The same is true with radical Islam which I believe is nothing but an understandable reaction of a tribal/family clan oriented society to the selfish debauchery pervading Western societies today. Why on earth would they want democracy if it means astronomical divorce rates, the utter collapse of conventional sexuality identity, and the destruction of stable, affordable middle class family life?

If we cleaned up our own act, the Islamic world would calm down. Seen that world close up when I lived in Jerusalem in the 1970s before the 1st Intifada when it was possible for Jews to go anywhere safely in the city and the West Bank. I was impressed by their family and community oriented society.

While I cannot comment on the actual risks involved in your commentary I am reminded that as many have said before me that “perception of reality drives decisions more than reality itself.”

That is why many times we receive “spin” and “out and out” misrepresentation which leads to fraud as others try to affect our perception of reality.

We must be careful to evaluate information no matter whom or what is the source.

Since we are all human we inherently carry with us perceptions that may not conform to reality.

The “spin doctors” and others (who may be unconsciously giving distorted information based on their false perceptions) then attempt to change ours – some for ill-conceived purposes and some for what they believe are based on an accurate perception of the facts.

The costs of fear don’t appear to be shared by everyone. Duty Free Shops can still count on selling to customers who will change planes and carry their purchases to their next flight. Supposedly the bags are sealed, but I suspect that this subparagraph to the new regulations undermines the whole effort. It gives me the same uneasy feeling as the fact that the new rules don’t address an entirely new explosives technology, but one that predates 9/11.

The whole circus that is post 9/11 airport security is designed with two things in mind: To prevent incidents on planes and perhaps more importantly to provide the flying public with assurances that it is safe to fly. Never mind that the actual risk of flying is quite small compared to driving, it’s an irrational fear being addressed in a fear driven economy.
At the cold logical analytical level, it all boils down to what a life is worth. If we made an assumption that 1000 people a year would die in terrorist acts if there was no aviation security and the cost of providing said security was 1 billion dollars a year in both expenses and lost time then we would be valuing life at $1 million per. I’m sure that when you look at all of the costs in real life you will find that we are probably spending an order of magnitude more for security and one has to ask at what point is enough enough.

A recent article in the Bulletin of the American Scientists describes how difficult it would be for any terrorists to mix the liquids once inside a plane. I agree with Mr. Norris, we have overreacted considering that the would-be terrorists that were arrested were a long way from carrying out their threat.

When I saw the banning of liquids on planes in the news, I felt it was a ridiculous, silly overreaction. The sky is falling all the time now, in America. How resentful and angry I would be had I been made to dispose of my toothpaste or infant formula? PLENTY! We’re held hostage at every turn by our fear of terrorists. Where is our outrage? Where is our courage? Better yet, where is our commonsense?

One gallon of gasoline possess the same latent explosive potential as one hundred pounds of primer cap powder. Thirty people each carrying a small amount of gasoline or other similar fluid in small bottles could assemble enough of a explosive volatile organic substance in fluid form to create a credible explosion on an aircraft if properly placed (e.g. in the seats in the mid-twenties on the lower deck of a 747 over the central fuel tank) even under the new “Zip-lock” rules. We need better technologies to screen substances like PIDs and FIDs in airports, Muon detectors in ports and intelligent profiling of passengers – not more knee-jerk rules poorly implimented.

‘Well, yeah, if we put our women in hijabs and such maybe they’d like us more, Mr. Klein. I’m not interested. They’re supposed to imitate us, not vice versa.’

Imitate us? Says who?

It’s that kind of arrogance that is such a turn-off to much of the world. Contrary to what you make think, the ‘American Way’ isn’t the only way and to tell ‘them’ they must imitate ‘us’ is just offensive.

The Affordable Care Act imposes economic burdens that are the equivalent of taxes, an economist writes. Read more…

About

Economics doesn't have to be complicated. It is the study of our lives — our jobs, our homes, our families and the little decisions we face every day. Here at Economix, journalists and economists analyze the news and use economics as a framework for thinking about the world. We welcome feedback, at economix@nytimes.com.